长风破浪济沧海——Vikki 的写作帖 [1006G]

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

下周五期末考试
7月3日
政治搞定
补笔记+看课本
英语课本
计划+U1
90以上是必须的
必须的
---------------------
今天
完成田野调查报告
明天交
-------------------------
今天
联系采访对象
下周采访
---------------------
恩
坚持住了
要坚持
拼过去
拼过去！
WHEN BATTLES ARE THERE, THE ONLY THING YOU NEED IS TO FIGHT!
COME ON!

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

本周作文放弃
不能放
提纲吧

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

【寄托背单词活动0910G&1006G】
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=977108&page=1#pid1772905127
EXAMPLE 家家组0910G
FROMhttps://bbs.gter.net/thread-977142-1-1.html
期间：自2009.6.27起至2009.10.23
) f4 E* y& A# h# m3 Q1 @Target:  GRE红宝书
# F& B9 ^' y1 T, c' kGoal:     AW前 红宝单词过5遍+ 笔考前红宝单词过50遍+
' i# E! {, G! t# ]7 wDaily Task: 3个Lists（基础量，后期背诵进度加快的时候自行调整） 每晚汇总当天背诵情况，各组员列出认为词义最为晦涩或是用法最为特殊的难词10个，大家讨论
详细规则：
% l1 G) L% d3 |% M7 n3 j4 e' g7 l* A; r/ J' q; Q  D0 @% c
由于现在使用率最高的是群言出版社出版的《GRE词汇精选》第七版，全书共51个lists/ T* y8 A9 V9 a. F" b( e
因此以我们规定的每天3个lists，一共是17天，过完一遍，可以很容易看到，这样的速度，到AW考前过5遍+是不行的，我们会在过完头两遍之后开始提速，其实第二遍开始就会提速，不过提的幅度会根据大家第一遍的效果
我们第一遍集体过红宝，我推荐杨鹏《17天搞定GRE单词》里介绍的方法，五分钟一页、半小时6页、一小时一个list，并隔1天、2天、4天、7天以及15天的周期，review。当17天我们过完整本红宝的时候，记忆周期还要顺时延15天，希望大家坚持，越是红宝后半部分的单词越是难被大家记住，理由其实很简单，就是痛苦削弱了劲头，越到后面，我们的任务越重，也越累，这时候我们该怎么办？两个词：坚持、共勉。我们比那些孤军奋战的孩子们多了一种纾解压力和痛苦的途径，我们有partners！意识到自己不是一个人，这是一件很幸福的事，所以希望不要有任何一个孩子掉队。
! E- \) s# O4 Z/ C1 }1 c6 [+ k+ U$ {' V. b* K; z8 k
由于是集体行动，考虑到有竞争才有进步，我们大家集体从list 1开始。每天抽10-15分钟对自己的复习成果做一个简单的小测验，这个大家可参考我之后上传的一套测试题，这部分要靠大家自觉。
找出自己所背的3个lists里面自己感觉最难记住、意思最晦涩、用法最特别或者是让你觉得最恶心的10个单词，用W-M查清楚详细解释，有余力的话，把对应的例句、难句之类也找出来

aggrandize【ag(加强)+grand（大）+ize】 % C* M6 \6 f$ h( S1 : to make great or greater : INCREASE, ENLARGE 2 : to make appear great or greater : praise highly 3 : to enhance the power, wealth, position, or reputation of *exploited the situation to aggrandize himself* 4 ragrarian【agr（农业，田地）+irian（表形容词）】& N6 n# [+ o8 h7 S8 @6 s) x of land amalgamate 1. to unite; combine) b4 h2 m3 b$ \  C6 T+ v 2. to mix amnesty【a+mnes（记忆）+ty】 the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals   Q. A0 T; N9 Xapropos【a+prop（看作是proper适宜的）+os】 1 : at an opportune time : SEASONABLY 2 : by way of interjection or further comment: with regard to the present topic aristocrat【aristo（最好的）+crat（统治）】. L. ~6 K$ I* I* M$ ] 1 : a member of an aristocracy;  especially   : NOBLE + Z0 t% P7 x4 `4 z2 a : one who has the bearing and viewpoint typical of the aristocracy  b : one who favors aristocracy / a  L# g; `( [* H3 : one believed to be superior of its kind *the aristocrat of Southern resorts?Southern Living*. S, F8 ~" b, t6 l annihilate【an+nihil（无）+ate（动词词尾）】 : O- c# ?7 v2 C; `- D1 a : to cause to be of no effect : NULLIFY  b : to destroy the substance or force of0 Z, U, t9 H- Q( R4 |" B. U 2 : to regard as of no consequence 0 @7 K$ I4 @' _6 R3 : to cause to cease to exist;  especially   : KILL 6 I. B1 \/ R% i  V4 a : to destroy a considerable part of *bombs annihilated the city*  b : to vanquish completely : ROUT *annihilated the visitors 56*0*5 O% F3 b) I* `7 e+ U( ~# C. H2 g- u5 @ intransitive senses  ,  of a particle and its antiparticle   : to vanish or cease to exist by coming together and changing into other forms of energy (as radiation or particles)/ H7 I- o; K7 E( T3 q. G+ l apocryphal【apo（远）+cryph（隐藏）+al】 9 r, ]. c" j0 Z  ~of doubtful authenticity 4 l2 E$ R. v" K' y3 J0 japoplectic【来自apoplexy】 ; o7 h8 g; p; W" ~8 R, ]* t1 : of, relating to, or causing stroke* g" {& T* I6 w" j; e2 y) I 2 : affected with, inclined to, or showing symptoms of stroke . o, ?% l0 h3 t6 }1 M5 F+ e3 : of a kind to cause or apparently cause stroke *an apoplectic rage*;  also   : greatly agitated3 f0 W! e/ q3 q! E3 `& ^  B* n amalgamate , O0 F  l8 @" g( Q- w, X: to unite in or as if in an amalgam;  especially    4 i' _% H( X  c- p7 f  P: O: to merge into a single body - [5 l) Y' p% L/ K& G9 Y& W1 Uagile【ag（做）+ile（易于…）】 ! J- r. O& p/ N4 G/ x1 : marked by ready ability to move with quick easy grace5 ]3 J4 C" B/ \& U; m/ I1 `; T 2 : having a quick resourceful and adaptable character *an agile mind*. D" L: E' M3 w8 L' d: v agglomerate【ag+glomer（球）+ate】* |7 {! r  I+ B/ z. s : to gather into a ball, mass, or cluster4 Z5 j7 I3 L" X' ] archaic ! k' I* n) d, `& v1 : having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses + K5 E1 a: J3 F% z! U' ?1 T2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : ANTIQUATED *archaic legal traditions*3 s6 `8 m8 o0 a2 N4 V  ] 3 capitalized   : of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development;  especially   : of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture % X% k! l2 p* g4 : surviving from an earlier period;  specifically   : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage4 H; o9 q$ Q  z' H& n 5 capitalized   : of or relating to the period from about 8000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. and the North American cultures of that time/ s) Y5 ]2 @" w! ^; N7 s/ R architect【archi（统治者、主要的）+tect（做）】 3 U7 b1 f: q1 ^% A: F) l: Aperson who designs buildings and supervises their construction 3 ]2 `" i. m* k* jalacrity % y9 ]# e& A# E+ |: promptness in response : cheerful readiness3 P0 v' l5 s$ D2 v ambidextrous【ambi（二）+dextr（右的）+ous】两只手都像右手一样灵巧→十分灵巧的 9 V. D' C/ O; C1 : using both hands with equal ease ; p0 w- F% O# ]8 h# F2 : unusually skillful : VERSATILE / n2 m% W8 S2 M8 g% t3 : characterized by duplicity : DOUBLE-DEALING

巴朗模考
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=607008&extra=&page=1
------------------------------------
新手入门---考完AW我们应该干什么
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-620430-1-1.html

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

第五周 作业	周二	周三	周四	周五	周六	周日
Issue221提交	√√√
Issue48 提交			√√√
Issue221修改		√√√
Issue48 修改				√√√
Issue221自改			√√√
Issue48 自改					√√√
Argu101 提交				√√√
Argu101 修改					√√√
Argu101 自改

活动全部作业

第一周	Issue13	Issue11	Argu173
第二周	Issue143	Issue131	Argu242
第三周	Issue157	Issue208	Argu243
第四周
第五周	Issue221	Issue48	Argu101
第六周	Issue185	Issue130	Argu167
第七周	Issue50	Issue153	Argu105
第八周	Issue51	Issue131	Issue88	Argu51	Argu53
第九周	Issue43	Issue103	Issue56	Argu238	Argu45

第九周作业	周一	周二	周三	周四	周五
	Issue43	Issue103	Issue56	Argu238	Argu45

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

【ECO. 每日一读 FROM DIES 组】
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=932384&extra=&highlight=&page=5
（经济类）

On small businesses, newspapers, California, Britain, Kuwait, Jeffrey Sachs, Crossrail, vroomtones
Jun 4th 2009 From The Economist print edition
1、作者的写作思路主线（我的评论）
2、文章中应用的写作技巧（我的评论）
3、作者逻辑思维漏洞（我的评论）
4、标出文中的GRE级别词汇（红色）
5、标出文章中的自己认为的好词好句（蓝色）
6、文章对你写作灵感的激发（我的评论）
7、适应于AW中的例子或者思路（栗色加粗）

A helping hand
SIR – The relationship between small businesses and their banks has deteriorated over the past year, with banks raising the cost of finance and firms being denied new credit. As you pointed out, the European policy of a credit mediator, an independent go-between for banks and their business customers, can be very effective in rebuilding that broken bond (“Humble but nimble”, May 23rd). A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses of its members found that 72% thought a corporate mediator would help them access finance; 86% said that credit decisions should be taken at a local level, in conversation with a bank’s branch manager who understands small businesses.

Since the start of the year we have been calling for a mediator in Britain, but have yet to see such a policy put in place. The British government should follow its European neighbours and take a harder line with the banks. Getting banks lending again is the solution to working our way out of the current crisis.

John Wright
National chairman
Federation of Small Businesses
London

Read all about it
SIR – There is a fundamental difference between new and old media that your briefing about the internet’s impact on the future of the news business only touched on (“Tossed by a gale”, May 16th). Newspapers differ from other news sources in one very significant respect: they actually employ journalists to report. They provide budgets for these people to travel to the areas where news events are happening, conduct interviews there, ferret out documents relevant to the story, and so forth. Yahoo! does not have bureaus in Washington, London or Tokyo, and whatever appears on Yahoo! News is a digest of what someone in its office has read in a real newspaper or downloaded from some other, similar, online source.

This is also true of all other internet news “sources” and blogs. They are in fact secondary sources, either repeating what real journalists have dug up or putting their own spin and comment on it.

A desk with a computer terminal is a poor observation post from which to see the world. In the absence of newspapers, who will fund reporters’ travels? Who will interview the people making the news? Who will dig out the information? I don’t see any online news outfit spending the money to do anything like that. The news will always be with us, but its quality will be immeasurably poorer without newspapers.

Albert Kirsch
Bal Harbour, Florida

*SIR – Curious. In a leader on the crisis in the newspaper industry you offered little more than a polite shrug and your usual balm, that technology and the market will eventually make everything all right (“The rebirth of news”, May 16th). Then in the very next leader, on the uproar over parliamentary expenses, you somehow forgot to mention that it was a newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, that exposed the scandal (“Moats and beams”, May 16th).

John Harney
New York

A shot at Sacramento
SIR – I didn’t like your condescending attitude towards California’s voters, who rejected ballot proposals on the budget deficit put forward by the governor and the legislature (“No gold in state”, May 23rd). Contrary to what you believe, the electorate understood the ballot questions perfectly well, and that passing them would mean higher taxes and a raid on funds allocated to specific programmes. That is why the proposals were rebuffed.

We are fed up with being the highest taxed state in America. It seems that all the legislature can do to address the budget crisis is raise taxes ad infinitum. They are sucking us dry. The message is clear: the state needs to tighten its belt, just like the rest of us.

Clelia Svoboda
San Clemente, California

SIR – I could not help but notice a connection between your briefing on the perils of a news industry struggling to survive in a country where most citizens are either uninformed or choose a news source slanted toward their own political bias, and your article on the budget crisis facing California because of intransigent partisan wrangling and excessive democracy.

Jonathan Patton
Franklin, Tennessee

British subjects
SIR – I am compelled to challenge the introduction to your leader on the expenses scandal in Parliament: “Over the past century, the British have lost a lot—their empire, their military might, their economic leadership and even their sense of superiority” (“Political climate change”, May 23rd). The error you make is implying that losing these things is somehow a bad thing. On the contrary, colonising other peoples is now considered an offence against humanity: it has been abandoned and should not be mourned. Moreover, Britain does not waste billions of pounds each year on dubious defence projects and militaristic self-indulgence, and is better able to spend the money elsewhere. It participates in NATO, the most successful military organisation in modern history, which keeps Britain more than secure. Appropriate military strength that is cost-efficient is an optimal position.

As for economic leadership, this is now a collaborative effort and should be celebrated as a victory for liberal economics (born in Britain) rather than some short-sighted national tragedy. When it comes to a sense of superiority, that is more subjective and certainly based on individual rather than collective identity.

It is quite clear that globalisation and cosmopolitanism are nails in the coffin of deluded ideas of national identities. What a nation loses has to be contrasted with what it gains in return. As the world has changed, so has Britain. It has never been happier, healthier, wealthier or better educated. It is comfortable and secure among the most developed nations, which have learnt that shared values, mutual economic relationships, social justice and collective defence bring genuine success. In effect, what you described in your rather adolescent attack on Britain is not the changing nature of that nation but the changing nature of the world.

Mark Wittgenstein
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Politics in Kuwait
*SIR – The struggle that Kuwait faces in making its democracy function effectively is present in many states in the region (“It’s hard to create a democracy”, May 23rd). In countries where there are still very strong family, even tribal, ties, people frequently still vote for their kin more than political ideology. The tribal areas in Kuwait, for example, account for a sizeable portion of the elected representatives.

Where ideology has mattered is in the increasingly more conservative tendencies of many Gulf societies. These states are frequently willing to open up and become more “Western”, yet their people frequently are more fearful of losing their own traditions. This is best illustrated by one Kuwaiti Islamist member of parliament, who at a conference some years ago was proud to proclaim that Kuwait had a democratic vote to deny women the right to vote.

The fact that Kuwait continues to move forward towards a more democratic system despite the challenges can only be welcomed.

Chris Doyle
Director
Council for Arab-British Understanding
London

Good Acumen
SIR – Regarding your profile of me (Face value, May 23rd), I would like to say that Jeffrey Sachs is a thoughtful advocate of development for the extreme poor, and his work with Millennium Promise is important and commendable. We disagree on some points, such as whether private markets for bednet distribution can complement free distribution programmes, but like many tough problems, we embrace the diversity of perspectives in order to find the best solutions.

Jacqueline Novogratz
Chief executive
Acumen Fund
New York

On track
*SIR – Regarding your article on the future of London’s transport system, there is no choice to be made between Crossrail and an upgraded London Underground network: London, and Britain, must have both (“Projects at war”, May 23rd). The benefits to be had from these two infrastructure projects are inextricably linked. The work to renew and upgrade the Underground will only allow us to keep pace with the demand created by London’s long-term growth. It is Crossrail that delivers an additional 10% to rail-based transport capacity, relieving intense pressure on the Tube and other rail services.

With the work under way on both Crossrail and the Tube, what matters now is that we get on and deliver, on time and to budget. We have paid a heavy price for underinvestment in infrastructure in the past. It is not a mistake anyone should contemplate making again.

Peter Hendy
London’s transport commissioner
Transport for London
London

Boom boxes
SIR – Your article about making quiet electric-cars louder, and therefore safer so that pedestrians and cyclists can hear them, posed a question: “What sort of noise should electric-powered cars make?” (“The sound of silence”, May 9th). As long as the audio output has variable tempo and pitch there should really be no limit to the types of sounds that electric-powered cars can emit. They could produce infinitely variable auxiliary sounds, or vroomtones.

Like ringtones for phones, vroomtones could be offered by third parties. Cities could even offer vroomtone themes so that all of the traffic in the town creates a co-ordinated soundscape. Let us not limit the opportunity for change. Let us make a sound improvement to our environment.

Dan Needham
Victoria, Canada

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

【每日一评】

0910AW SPECTACULAR之【每日一评】总贴

——传说中的每日一评，或是有代表性的习作，或是精品文章，AW版各位版主，将带大家每天仔细品味一篇
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-959220-1-1.html

【写作词汇】

0910AW SPECTACULAR 之 【写作词汇】 汇总贴--Still water runs deep
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-957834-1-1.html
——没有cet，没有ibt，也没有红宝gre，破除传统思维定式的束缚，我们要整理自己的写作词汇库，1000字足矣，这个是作家的水平，我们呢？也没问题！

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

坚持，
趁我们还年轻……

后天期末
这辈子最后一次政治期末了吧
今天建党节
下午的干部会议翘掉了……

采访对象一再推脱
社会啊……

暂时消失两天
三号考完期末再归队……

zhizhelegeUID: 2630988

2# vikki_baifn   
很遗憾 刚刚进入状态 加油

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

期末终于结束了
补觉……

然后
转战课程论文和AW

恩
田野！

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

38# zhizhelege
不论早晚
只要在状态就好
加油！

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

【AW-A 综合解读】（2006年的老帖）
FROM 【每日一评】
ETS 关于ARGUMENT 的官方说明
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-439808-1-1.html

解读ETS官方关于ARGUMENT的说明：
————到底怎么分析ARGUMENT以及如何行文（修订版）
一、        ARGUMENT部分考核的是什么？
ARGUMENT考核的是作者理解，分析，评估所给的文章，并清晰的把自己的分析用语言表达出来．ARGUMENT并不是像很多人理解的一样是一种驳论文，我们不能漫无边际的发表自己对原文观点的批驳，我们的重点是分析原文作者如何论证其观点，如何用论据支持论点的过程，找出原文作者分析的不和逻辑的地方，我们攻击的是原文作者论证上的逻辑错误，不是批驳他的观点！
二、        分析题目，理解题意：
ARGUMENT的任务是分析作者论断在逻辑上的合理程度，要求仔细分析检查作者的论据，和理由的使用。分析题目读题要多读几遍，同时罗列出要攻击的要点（利用提供给你的草稿纸记录你的攻击要点），特别应该注意：
        论据，支持观点的材料是什么？
        作者详细声明、论断的是什么？
        作者的前提或者假设是什么？特别要注意那些暗含的前提和无根据的论述。
        作者一些话的深层含义，或者从作者某几句话可以推断出的作者观点是什么？
简单的总结一下，就是抓住作者用什么证据为了说明什么？在推断的时候又那了哪些结论做了直接引用来证明结论？这些直接引用的结论有什么前提？作者在得出结论的时候用了什么样的暗含的前提，这些前提和结论之间是什么关系？由作者的结论，或者作者由其论据推出结论的推理逻辑，我们能进一步推断出什么？这些推断得到的结论是否荒唐可笑或者与作者的逻辑、前提、人们的常识或者真理相悖呢？

另外，一个很重要的分析ARGUMENT的技巧就是我们从题目本身的结构去分析，看作者是怎么从自己的论据论证到自己的结论的，每一步的推理是否正确，特别要注意标识出作者推理逻辑的连接词如：
however   thus   therefore   evidently   hence   in conclusion
        这里再补充说说关于推理的问题：
关于推理，我们的思维和ETS可能会有很大的区别，这一点可以从GRE的阅读和反义题目中看出来，有的时候，我们的推理总是推的比较远，这里一定要把握这样一点，推理向前一步就是正确的，但是再迈一步就是错误的推断．
=======================================================
特别提示：ARGUMENT四大禁区：
1．        不要讨论或攻击作者论据的真实性和准确性。也就是说我们要假定作者的证据的真实准确的，而我们攻击的真正切入点是作者由这些证据到结论的推理过程。
2．        不要对作者的观点表示赞同或反对，我们的切入点是作者是怎么得到这些观点的。
3．        不要在作者所述问题上发表自己的观点，记住了你在写ARGUMENT而不是ISSUE!!!
4．        不要相信现在某些培训机构的一些不负责任的老师的说法，说ARGUMENT就是找茬，凡是自己认为能找茬的都拉出来批驳，特别是一些老师让学生们疯狂的批驳数据和调查类问题，而忽略了作者推断推理的逻辑错误，使得一些考生写出来的作文更像是打油诗。不是说一有调查就一定要批驳，不是说调查里边没有比例就要质疑，如此等等．．．．．．

三、        Purpose分析，Audience定位（这一点我会在以后的文章里边专门论述）
这里只要明确我们的作文不是电子阅卷器改的（e-rater）至少现在的GRE不是，GMAT已经开始电子阅卷，GRE的AW以后会不会，现在没有确定，但是现在的GRE不是像一些网站和培训机构流传的那样电子阅．请看官方说明里的这样一句话：Your audience consist of college and university faculty who are trained as GRE readers to apply the scoring criteria identified in the scoring guide for the “Analyze an Argument ” task.依照这句话，我们可以很肯定的知道我们的文章的读者．
我们可以通过分析５，６分的GRE官方主题范文了解GRE作文的评分过程和标准（援引自官方说明）
四、        构思你的文章：
几个前提：
        ARGUMENT写作，不是要求你的专业知识有多深多专，那些在文章中尽力展现自己专业能力和知识深度的考生只会引起改卷老师的反感。
        不需要了解专业的论述方法和行文术语和逻辑学知识。只需要给出其他的解释和能够改进作者论述的方法就可以。
        许多大学的关于写作的书籍就足以包含写作ARGUMENT所需的修辞，和逻辑以及批判性思维的知识。不要试图在作文中炫耀自己的逻辑和修辞学能力。
        专门课程的学习和特殊的写作技巧和ARGUMENT得高分没有必然的联系
说白了，其实我们就是要把抽象的逻辑错误的术语，写的具体．这个具体化的过程可以包括举例，阐释，对比，假设，推理等等．
构思中的几个重点：官方说明中叫做key concepts:
1．        替代性解释（Alternative explanation）可以解释结论的其他可能原因。其实就是我们常说的他因．
2．        分析思维（analysis）把复杂问题划分成为独立的组成部分，分析他们是如何组成一个有机体进而得到结论的。对应的还有综合．分析与综合是我们经常忽视的AW论证技巧！
3．        论据（Argument）用来支持或者批驳的论证和证据．
4．        假设（Assumption）为得到结论作者使用或暗含的条件或者前提
5．        结论（Conclusion）由确凿的论据，合理的论证得到的断言．
6．        反例（counterexample）用来反驳作者论证的例子。这也是丰富ISSUE论证手段的重要工具．
特别说明：反例在ARGUMENT里边的妙用。一个反例比无数句的说理都管用。在作者的前提和假设下，我们如果可以举出一个典型且与作者结论相反的例子，再稍加分析，那么就可以很好的证明作者的论断的不合理性。根据作者建立起来的逻辑，通过反例或者推理，最后推翻作者的逻辑，这是批驳的最高境界．
7．        补充证据（Additional evidence）能够削弱或者增强作者论述逻辑性的证据。
8．        改进措施（changes/improvements）能够使文章更加合理的改进。比如在调查方式上，或者需要进一步的资料等等。
9．        数据（Numbers Percentage Statistics）考虑数据类问题，这些数据是否能合理的支持作者的论述。
下面总结几个最重要的key concepts：作者的论据、论证、假设、结论，替代性解释、他因，反例，其他的支持或者削弱作者论证的论据，改进措施。
五、       如何找错误：
A．先给出在中国广为流行的所谓逻辑错误：
十大逻辑错误：（在老孙和其他版本基础上总结）
（一） 数据类错误：
1． 样本的选择采用了什么样的程序？即样本的选择必须遵循随机性的原则，在调查的时候，被调查对象的全体必须都有可能被抽到，不能在事先就把一部分的对象排除在调查之外。即随机性。
2． 调查的样本有多大？调查时必须保证从被调查对象的总体中抽取足够大的样本，否则，调查的结构就缺少可新度。样本足够大。
3． 调查是应该使用明确的数据，例如提供具体的数字，比例或百分比。如果作者使用了例如many majority这样的含糊数据，就要质疑其合理性。例外，一旦出现了百分比，就要质疑次百分比是建立在多大的基数之上，一旦出现了绝对的数据，就要质疑其在总体中所占的百分比，看是否具有代表性。（这一点我持保留意见）
4． 数据是否完整，论述的时候不能忽略重要的相关数据。所举的数据是否涉及了论述的核心？
5． 数据是否重要？是否能很好的论证作者的观点？也许作者列举了精确的数据，但他所给的数据与作者要论证的问题没有关系，或很难支持作者的论证，我们就要在这里展开攻击。（即是否还有别的原因呢？）
6． 调查进行的时间是否合适？所进行的时间是否具有特殊性，是否会对调查结果产生巨大的影响，这都是要考虑的问题。
7． 数据使用平均数的问题，要注意使用平均数只是描述了总体的特征，对局部的事物来说，总体的平均数并不能代表局部的特征。对局部来说，其数据可能远大于或远小于总体的平均数，所以在提供平均数的时候还要考虑局部 数据与平均数的偏差程度。
8． 是否将数据的相关性混同为因果关系。
另外在官方说明里还有这样一个例子：一个drama club的成员数比上一年增加了100%，如果基数是１００，那么增加到２００，这可以说明有很大的增加，但是如果前一年只有5个人，那么这样的增加实际上是很微小的，不足以说明问题。
（二） 循环论证（Begging the question）
循环论证是作者在论述的过程中，关键性的论断已经被作者做为了他论述的前提，以论断自身推断论断本身正确，这显然是我们要批驳的。在审题的过程中，如果发现作者的论述中某一重要的论断没有论据支持，就可以考虑他是不是在循环论证。即用结论论证结论。
（三） 急于概括（Hasty generation）
作者在论据不足的情况下，只有一两个孤立的例子就推出结论，这显然是不恰当的。也就是要考虑作者的论证是否全面而深刻。
（四） 错误类比（False Analogy）
在比较两个事物的时候，只看到他们表面的共同点，而忽略了其深层（也就是本质上的）差异，在逻辑上称为错误类比。在argument里边，只要在论述中出现了两个相似的事物，几乎绝对可以攻击他的错误类比，因为世界上没有完全相同的事物，总是有差异的，我们只要抓住两事物可能存在的差异来进行分析，攻击就可以。从差异入手。
（五）非此即彼型错误 (False dilemma)
把复杂问题简化为非此即彼的两方面，这是不合理的，忽略了该问题的其他诸多方面。在生活中的简化是可取的，但在逻辑上，他一旦简化，我们就有逻辑漏洞可寻找。也就是说，作者在论证某几方面的时候，必须给出合理的解释，以排除其他的可能性。其他的解释。
（六） 因果关系简单化
就是说作者在做因果推理的时候，忽略了因果关系的复杂性，在现实中，一个结果可能是多个原因同时作用产生的，或者一个原因也可能导致多种结果。在攻击的时候，我们就抓住其他的原因或结果攻击其论证的严密性。他因。
（七）时序性因果性错误Post hoc, ergo propter hoc(after this, therefore because of this)作者错误的把时间上出现在前的事物当做时间上出现在后的事物的原因，我们在攻击的时候要从两事物之间到底存在不存在因果关系着手，或者说我们要帮作者找出正确的原因。这一错误的典型标志就是出现时间标志，时间在前的作为时间在后的原因，而作者并没有给出两事件有因果关系的其他证据。
（八）共时性因果错误（Concurrence）：
把发生在同一时段的两事物认为有因果关系，此错误与上面的（七）类似。
（九） 不全面比较：
在比较两事物的时候只比较事物的某几个方面，忽略了其他的重要方面。一旦作者对两事物进行比较，就绝对可以攻击他的这个错误，因为作者的比较是不可能做到全面的。类似与错误类比的问题。
（十） 整体与部分
从整体的特征简单的推倒出部分的特征，或由部分的特征简单的导出整体的特征。这都是我们要攻击的。
        
特别注意：在分析错误练习的时候，一篇文章要找到4个以上的错误，写作的时候找到3个主要的逻辑错误就可以。其余次要的逻辑错误可以一笔带过。找逻辑错误的步骤：
通读原题，划分句子，找出作者的结论，以及支持结论的几个论点，分析每一个论点自身的逻辑以及其与主题的关系，还有各个论点之间的关系，逻辑错误一定在这里边产生。
下面具体说明：（当然，对于一些ARGUMENT题目，主要的逻辑错误比较少，那么就可以把主要的逻辑错误展开论述，这个时候并不需要找到那么多的逻辑错误．）
        找错的步骤：
第一步：通过逻辑连接词：除了上边提到的however   thus   therefore   evidently   hence   in conclusion
还有：
因果关系： lead to    cause    because    result in    result from   consequently   
类比关系： compared to   such as    just like/as   consider    as……as…..      
in like manner   in comparison with    compared with   likewise   in the same way    similarly   equally
条件关系：once   if   unless   provided
第二步：找到这些连接词后：利用连接词划分层次，看请作者的推理思路，找到逻辑漏洞，其中：
1．每篇ARGUMENT文章都在完成一个貌似有逻辑的由因到果的演绎，或是执果索因，或者是由条件到结论的推断，或者是由结论到条件的反推。严重的错误往往是发生在推理过程中的，当然条件或者结果本身也存在着错误，但这些错误远不及推理错误致命。所以我们一定要关注作者的推理逻辑。
2．ARGUMENT也符合一般文章的结构行文，“总分总”的情况很多很多，分论的部分也多是论据的并列、条件的步步递进以及于是在这里清晰的看清结构有助于找出攻击突破点。
3．ARGUMENT的结论很容易找到，如recommend    conclude    therefore    …..should……
第三步：攻击错误，要首先确定攻击的优先级
Analogy>causal relations>study and survey
第四步:开始整理你自己的段落,准备展开攻击.
六、        组织自己的文章：
ETS要求不仅能识别出错误，还要把自己的攻击合理有机的结合起来。当然，只要论述严谨，合乎逻辑，可以不拘泥与文章的形式。”What matters is not the form the response takes, but how insightfully you analyze the argument and how articulately you communicate your analysis to academic readers within the context of the task.”
一些可以接受的形式：
1．       先概括作者的论断再指出自己的主要观点。
2．        分别分析作者的各个逻辑错误。
3．        分层叙述作者的主要逻辑错误。

七、        ARGUMENT得分点：
1．        识别出并能合理分析主要的逻辑错误
2．        合理的组织，展开攻击段落
3．        用相关说理和例子（特别是反例）来说明你的攻击理由
4．        用标准的书面英语表达
另外，从ETS的评分标准中，我们也可以把握出以下几点：（要注意5分6分的标准中是看的写作的闪光点，而四分以及四分以下可以看出作文的容易犯的错误）
5．        首先可以看出ETS对作文的强调重点
文章内容（深刻性、完备性）>文章结构（条理性）>文章文采（准确性、多样性）
6．发现错误容易，难的是怎么能够深刻的有见地的分析他们，这是区别好作文和优秀作文的基础！
7．你的观点不但要清楚，还要深刻且有说服力，组织要和逻辑，转折过度不但要合适，还要鲜明。
8．有效支持论点。
9．控制语言，句式变化，合适的选择词汇。
10．最后才是语法和语言习惯问题。5分和6分作文的区别主要是在思维和逻辑上的，语言并不能区别好与优秀！

其他：必须避免的错误：
观点之间没连接过度，没发现主要的逻辑错误，论据和主题联系不紧密，逻辑因果性不强，观点没有充分展开，表意不清楚，语法拼写错误太多。
=======================================================
最后关于字数的问题说明一下：在官方说明上的那篇同主题的范文，可以发现得６分的文章写了６２５字，得５分的文只有２５９字，所以说字数不是必须上４００，４５０等这样的界限，问题说明白了，推理完成了，就可以了．当然，１，２分的那些作文字数不但严重不足，连推理都没有展开，当然是不可取的．

[ 本帖最后由 pewcg8 于 2006-7-20 22:31 编辑 ]

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

FROM 【每日一评】
【ISSUE准备方法】

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-959220-2-1.html
本帖最后由 bernina 于 2009-7-3 21:04 编辑

对于issue, 就是在表达自己的思想。我们的一个个观点，就像一颗颗珠子，分散在脑海中。要写成文，这分散的观点自然不行，怎么将这些观点穿起来，便成为一个非常值得关注的问题。

想要让自己的文章通顺连贯，一气呵成，达到飞流直下三千尺之态势，需要在两方面下功夫。

第一，要有清晰地逻辑主线，也就是说，找出一条逻辑线，把自己的观点穿起来。当然，你会发现，有很多观点没办法合成，那么就请毅然抛弃这些无法穿入主线的观点。选出重要的，你的观点需要整齐排列而不能杂乱无章。

第二，就要有自然的段间过渡，今天的每日一评，就主要说说这个问题，希望大家在看完后，不要在停留在In addition, what's more就能解决问题的层面上了。文章过渡，非强塞进去两个过渡词这样简单。

pooh推荐系列文章之Coherence

In a coherent paragraph, each sentence relates clearly to the topic sentence or controlling idea, but there is more to coherence than this. If a paragraph is coherent, each sentence flows smoothly into the next without obvious shifts or jumps. A coherent paragraph also highlights the ties between old information and new information to make the structure of ideas or arguments clear to the reader.

Along with the smooth flow of sentences, a paragraph's coherence may also be related to its length. If you have written a very long paragraph, one that fills a double-spaced typed page, for example, you should check it carefully to see if it should start a new paragraph where the original paragraph wanders from its controlling idea. On the other hand, if a paragraph is very short (only one or two sentences, perhaps), you may need to develop its controlling idea more thoroughly, or combine it with another paragraph.

A number of other techniques that you can use to establish coherence in paragraphs are described below.

   Repeat key words or phrases.
Particularly in paragraphs in which you define or identify an important idea or theory, be consistent in how you refer to it. This consistency and repetition will bind the paragraph together and help your reader understand your definition or description.

   Create parallel structures
Parallel structures are created by constructing two or more phrases or sentences that have the same grammatical structure and use the same parts of speech. By creating parallel structures you make your sentences clearer and easier to read. In addition, repeating a pattern in a series of consecutive sentences helps your reader see the connections between ideas. In the paragraph above about scientists and the sense of sight, several sentences in the body of the paragraph have been constructed in a parallel way. The parallel structures (which have been emphasized) help the reader see that the paragraph is organized as a set of examples of a general statement.

  Be consistent in point of view, verb tense, and number.   Consistency in point of view, verb tense, and number is a subtle but important aspect of coherence. If you shift from the more personal "you" to the impersonal "one," from past to present tense, or from "a man" to "they," for example, you make your paragraph less coherent. Such inconsistencies can also confuse your reader and make your argument more difficult to follow.

  Use transition words or phrases between sentences and between paragraphs  . Transitional expressions emphasize the relationships between ideas, so they help readers follow your train of thought or see connections that they might otherwise miss or misunderstand. The following paragraph shows how carefully chosen transitions (CAPITALIZED) lead the reader smoothly from the introduction to the conclusion of the paragraph.

I don't wish to deny that the flattened, minuscule head of the large-bodied "stegosaurus" houses little brain from our subjective, top-heavy perspective, BUT I do wish to assert that we should not expect more of the beast. FIRST OF ALL, large animals have relatively smaller brains than related, small animals. The correlation of brain size with body size among kindred animals (all reptiles, all mammals, FOR EXAMPLE) is remarkably regular. AS we move from small to large animals, from mice to elephants or small lizards to Komodo dragons, brain size increases, BUT not so fast as body size. IN OTHER WORDS, bodies grow faster than brains, AND large animals have low ratios of brain weight to body weight. IN FACT, brains grow only about two-thirds as fast as bodies. SINCE we have no reason to believe that large animals are consistently stupider than their smaller relatives, we must conclude that large animals require relatively less brain to do as well as smaller animals. IF we do not recognize this relationship, we are likely to underestimate the mental power of very large animals, dinosaurs in particular.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Were Dinosaurs Dumb?"

连接：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=170901&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D52

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

ARGUMENT 进阶

AW进阶手册——精确写作，完善逻辑
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-784842-1-1.html

前言：有关英文写作，想必大家在经历了一定时间的AW磨砺后都会有所感觉，至少能写出成文的句子，并把自己的意思很明确地翻译出来了。但这仅仅是一个开始，英文写作与中文写作中巨大的鸿沟造成了很多考生在自认为发挥很不错的情况下还是只能拿到3分到4分，即使事例很充分、观点很鲜明、结构很完整。 其中一个重要的障碍就是中文的低文脉（low context）和英文的高文脉（high context）之间的隔阂。我们看自己写的文章， 觉得什么都说到了，而且之间似乎联系很紧密，但由于时态、指代和表达上的问题，加上思想的随意性，很容易造成文章在别人，特别是英语母语者看不懂，理解不清楚，只能靠猜，这样自然就大大降低了阅卷官对其AW的印象。 鉴于此，鄙人写此文以提出自己对写作中精确表达意思及联系逻辑的一些看法，希望对各位希望能进一步提高自己英文写作能力，特别是AW应试能力的板油有所帮助。 PART A. 名词指代 这里说的指代有两种，一种是用代词、特殊疑问词指代前文提过的事物，另一种是用名词直接指代客观事物。前者由于存在诸多语法规律而比较容易掌握，基本语法都会的同学应该不会有问题，所以这里不再累述。而后者因为需要根据语境进行把握，所以相对较难。我们主要说这个。 上过新东方戴云教主旧托语法课的同学应该对一句话特别熟悉：“单数可数名词不得单独存在。”也就是说可数名词单独出现的时候，需要用惯词、物主代词或形容词前置。其中用定惯词表示前文所提过的事物或者一类事物，用不定惯词表示单一事物。惯词在这里其实是起到一个定义的作用，以防止句中的名词来历不明，有点类似于在计算机语言开始前定义变量的语句。这也说明了英文对于文脉的严谨要求，所有的词都要经过初定义以显示其所指对象，而在文中出现的名词也必有所指。因此对待第一次提到的名词就要特别小心，切忌天马行空按意识蹦名词出来。 举个例子（从本版第一页随机抽取，感谢houyanchun版友） It is well known that the history of human beings is like a abundant and precious mine including various achievements which our ancestors have attained and all kinds of lesson ranging from policies to art which are waiting later generations to search and research carefully. 这是文章的第一句话，提到的名词都标出来了。history没问题，题目讨论对象，直接点出。human beings没问题，泛指世界人民。mine为比喻，由于用了like也比较明确，指自然界中的矿藏。achievements，问题有了，前文用到了mine，那么这里的achievements应该是跟mine有关，但这俩没有直接的字面联系，所以achievements应该是用来解释矿藏中藏的某些东西，换言之是个双重比喻，history-mine, achievement-?。ancestor用来限定和解释achievement的现实含义，没问题。lesson，问题又来了，除了和achievements问题类似外，lesson有教训、课程两种意思，这里指的哪个？从语句中无法判断，后面限定了是policies to art，那么似乎该理解成课程，可是是谁教的课程？mine？ history？ 无论对应哪个在字面上还是没有直接关系。至于之后的politics(政治，policies是政策的复数)和arts则更没有参照，属于无中生有，在题目规定了以history为讨论的大前提下，如何过度到这两个领域没有依据，因此显得没有逻辑。之后的generations和ancestors并列，似乎没问题，但仔细推敲也会发现，ancestors其实跟跟we(our)对比的，所以later generations应该指we，但如果这样直接用代词不就好了。 如果对每个名词都加以推敲，原文要表达的意思应该如下： History of human beings is like an abundant and precious mine. It maintained treasures our ancestors left us, their arhievements and lessons ranged in diverse fields, from politics to arts, from sceince to humanity. Such a great mine is worthy searching carefully. 可以看出修改的部分主要是让所有名词都能找到它的对应点，一方面对句中，一方面对现实世界中。 名词指代精确的目的是为了让读者知道你所写文章所讨论的对象是什么，属于哪个范畴，因此在下笔先想好自己要讨论的事物，在写作中看看自己的表达有没有说清楚是这种事物，用到的词是否精确，如果不精确，就用从句、同位语、分词结构等加以限定、解释，从而达到精确表达的目的。 PART B. 句子语境 中文和英文一大区别就是中文没有时态，想说是什么时候的事情直接加时间状语修饰就行了。而英语对于句子的语境有着严格的规定，所叙述的情况发生在哪里、何时发生都要有所明确。由于大部分情况下语境都可以根据上下文判断，所以我们对这种要求不会很敏感，但写出来英文就容易给英语母语者造成困惑。如果说PART A在说的事情是词不能无中生有，那么这里所说的就是句子不能无中生有，空中楼阁。 还是先举例说明（从本版第一页随机抽取，感谢hardaway版友） The speaker asserts that the growing significance of the video camera for its speciality of accurating and convincing will take place of the written records to play a main role of writing records. In my view, in some cases ,this contention is worth trusting in. While, the enduring development of the science for recording will not completely take all the room of documenting  fields as long as the people's pursuit for contents of language wasn't vanish. 这里两个句子，一个在说在特定情况下如何如何，一个要说某样事如何如何，两句话并不属于同一语境，按照正常的逻辑规律，应该是in certain cases....while under other circumstances....而后面一句的主语在之前也没提过，发生在什么时候也没说，怎么发生的也没说，仅仅是以对应题目为要求的话又显得词义替换过大，所以会让人搞不清这句话在说的是什么意思。 整理上下文并定义语境后修改如下： ....In my view, this prediction may happen in some cases, like for vivid entertainment or surficial stimulation. But as long as our language does not disappear, the science of multi-media recording will only develop parallel to written methods, without taking away all their existence. 在这里把句子中的一项名词性动作换作一般动词，表示其一直发生，从而表达判断、陈述的意思。而some cases则经常重新定义，可以指向后文又不显得空洞。 说到这里就需要提一下各种语态的用法，也算是帮大家复习下： 现代时：包括现代进行时、一般现代时，主要用于叙述正在发生的事情、真理、判断等适用于任何语境的句子。 将来时：表示预测、计划等，同样可表示判断。 过去时：用于叙述过去发生的事情。 可以发现，使用过去时的时候都是要特指发生过的某件事情，所以这时对于时间的语境要特别注意，通常不加限定的话是指人类历史中的事情，而加了限定则特指某一段时间，这段时间需要靠之前提到的内容进行指定。 举个简单的例子（从本版第一页随机抽取，感谢ccbban版友） At the very beginning, human did create machines to help us in some specific kinds of work. 这里的时态限定就不清楚，beginning of what? Modern history? Industrialization? Human history? 结语： 写了这么半天，主要是总结一下我在这一年来英文写作的一些经验，有看板油的作文想出，有从英文系的朋友那讨教过来的，也有从外国人那学来的，多多少少希望能给大家一些帮助，特别是有些不太习惯英文的严格写作模式，高中写习惯了小资情调的意识流散文的同学。 最后附上一份我的WRITING SAMPLE的修改，修改者是耶鲁大学建筑史教授，可以说他的修改很全面的解释了什么是英文的文脉，文章主题在讲估衣街的保护与历史建筑的话题，跟ISSUE26是同一个主题： Preservation and restoration of historical buildings and urban spaceshas never been an easy issue. [This sentence is fine grammatically. It promises that you will explain how much more complex these issues arefor Guyi St.]  During the past half century, China’s academic field may trulyunderstand this point:[There is a problem with tense here: "During the past half century"locates the 'time' of the sentence in the past 50 years. but the verb"may understand" is oriented to the future. Are you making a claimabout the past or the future here? Also, what is so important about the"academic field" understanding, rather than, say, the government, or thepublic, or developers?] after the republic was established in 1949, the conflict betweenmodernization and history propelled it to erase myriad relics fromancient cities.[you presume a conflict between modernization and history but don'texplain what that is. These are enormous terms with complex meanings butyou use them casually] Although experts have not stopped devoting their efforts to protectingthese cultural treasures,[There's another problem with 'time', that is, when are these expertsdevoting their efforts? Now, 50 years ago? Before 1980?] it was only after the 1980s that the history issue awakened theauthorities and forced them to seek better solutions than destruction.[What is the "history issue"? You use it casually but, as a reader, Idon't know what you're referring to. And how is destruction a solution?And if there are better solutions, what exactly is the problem?Preservation?]   修改后： The preservation and restoration of historic buildings and urban spaceshas never been an easy issue. But in China, these matters areparticularly difficult. The founding of the republic in 1949 led to thedestruction of countless ancient monuments, as Maoist revolutionariestried to divert popular attention from the past to the future. Only inthe 1980s did architects in this country begin to address the loss of China's cultural heritage. However, many national treasures continue to be destroyed as a result not of culturalrevolution but record breaking population growth and industrial development. 最最后，想说的是，英文写作特别是AW和以后大部分留学生需要面对的学术写作，是一项严谨而科学的工作，在文章中推敲自己的表达完善自己的逻辑显得非常必要。希望这篇能唤起大家对这方面的注意，在实践中多想一个方面，并通过练习来提高，以适应未来所要面对的写作任务

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

【每日一读】
Gre V  
New V
useful expressions in AW

--------------------------------

Medvedev and Obama: Sunshine in the Moscow Drizzle
By Michael Scherer / Moscow Monday, Jul. 06, 2009

Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev, Presidents of the former Cold War rival empires, greeted each other like old friends on Monday, with a cheery chat about the clouds. "Even the weather favors such an intercourse between us," the Russian leader said in a Kremlin sitting room, striking an optimistic tone on a drizzly day. Obama played along. "We might as well be inside today," he said.
Thus the pattern of U.S.-Russian relations all year: each new obstacle is presented as yet another opportunity to forge common ground. Historically intractable conflicts are little more than worthy challenges; a rainstorm is another reason to smile. Following decades of antagonism反抗；敌意 during the Cold War and its aftermath（不幸事件，比如战争，的后果）, Obama and Medvedev have staked substantial（实质的） political capital on their ability to repair relations between Washington and Moscow and move beyond past battles. Obama talks about hitting a "reset" button in U.S.-Russian relations; his Russian counterpart（对手） seeks a level of cooperation "realistically worthy of the 21st century." (Read about Russians' reactions to a black U.S. President.)

By day's end, the sun had broken through, and in their more than three hours together, the two leaders had given the world three signing ceremonies, three joint statements and the creation of a 13-part bilateral commission（委员会） that will "serve as a new foundation" for further cooperation. Medvedev lifted a ban on imports of certain U.S. livestock, and both countries pledged（承诺） greater future dialogue on everything from swine flu and North Korea to nuclear-missile（导弹） stockpiles（库存） and prisoners of war from World War II, Vietnam and Korea. On immediate U.S. priorities, there was an important agreement to allow 4,500 U.S. military flights to cross Russia to deliver "lethal supply" for the NATO campaign in Afghanistan — the current main supply line through Pakistan is vulnerable to Taliban attack. On the other key points of contention — U.S. efforts to recruit（补充） Russian help in pressuring Iran on（向……施加压力） its nuclear program; the thorny question of former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine pushing for NATO membership(North American Treaty Orgnization 北大西洋公约组织）; Moscow's efforts to reassert its influence over them — the Presidents revealed little of their discussions. "I reiterated my firm belief that Georgia's sovereignty（主权；统治权） and territorial integrity must be respected," Obama said, putting a typically sunny spin on their discussions. "Yet even as we work through our disagreements on Georgia's borders, we do agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict." (See pictures of Russia's war with Georgia.)
The news of progress was laid on so thick that it was easy to forget just how much the old divisions continue to define the relationship between the two countries. Much of the progress, of course, came on arms control, a quintessential Cold War theme, but then many of the major points of conflict between Russia and the U.S. are holdovers from the era of their imperial rivalry. "Basically, arms control regulates adversarial（对抗性的） relationships," observed Carnegie Moscow Center director Dmitri Trenin last week, "and this relationship continues, in many ways, 20 years after the end of the Cold War." (Read about the rift in Russian-European relations.)
Issues of democratic and human rights also continue to divide the countries. Opposition political parties and news outlets remain subject to state harassment in Russia and also suffer unofficial attacks by often unknown assailants. Medvedev was the handpicked successor to Vladimir Putin, who now serves as Prime Minister although he is widely viewed as the power behind the throne. (Obama will meet with Putin Tuesday morning.) Medvedev was elected President in March 2007 with 70% of the vote, though at least one rival candidate was kept off the ballot（投票）; state-owned media heavily favored Medvedev, and some regions of the country reported turnouts（票额） of 100%.
Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion who now heads the United Civil Front, an opposition social movement, has said that Obama's courting of Medvedev is having a damaging impact. "Abandon the policy of double standards and call a spade a spade," Kasparov demanded in a recent Russian-magazine interview when asked what message he'd give Obama. "Stop pretending that the current regime（政权） under Putin is democratic and thus give it a carte blanche（全权） for further abuses."
But these harsh realities were quickly pushed aside by aides to both leaders. In his dealings with foreign leaders, Obama focuses on seeking progress based on both sides' national interests. "This is not the Cold War," Michael McFaul, Obama's top Russia expert, declared after the day's summit ended. "This is not just a relationship about confrontation."
Repairing the U.S.-Russia relationship requires finding points of cooperation and expanding on those. Outstanding disagreements will be tackled only later, in the hope that cooperation will build mutual understanding to help resolve simmering tensions. As Medvedev said in an online video blog before the summit, "Today is not the time to find out whose life is more difficult or which of us is stronger." That time, if it does come, will be later.
— Additional reporting by John Wendle

vikki_baifnUID: 2618941

【HEAVEN IN FLOWERS 第二章】
ARGUMENT 段落间的关系：让步
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=921368&highlight
退一步海阔天空---论argument的段落间让步关系

by irvine 我是一个学计算机的人，从小学开始就接触程序设计，一直到现在。所以我非常崇尚的就是计算机的“绝对逻辑”，什么意思？就是说无论你从什么地方划一道线，上面的程序和下面的程序，必然是绝对的紧耦合关系，去掉任何一句话，都会导致最终结果的偏差。我想，在某些方面，尤其是逻辑方面来说，写议论文，和写程序，是相通的。 当谈到段落之间的逻辑结构的时候，不得不提到的八股是著名的“让步理论”。现在的AW市场（原谅我用市场一词来形容），放眼望去，铺天盖地的让步，甚至有的童鞋，除了让步以外什么都不会了，开头-第一段-让步第二段-让步第三段-结尾成了套路，我估计这种情况，已经泛滥到让ETS谈让步色变的地步了，是啊，无论是谁，看了一整天的even if/even though/even/granted that…都会觉得恶心想吐，更不用说你看上10年试试？ 无用质疑，XDF的课堂和老师在给新一代的祖国栋梁的洗脑上，做出了不可磨灭的贡献。说到让步这个论证方式，我想最开始的源头应当是来自一篇ETS的官方Argument， 在The country Myria这篇6分范文里面，作者采用了大量的让步论证方式来完善自己的逻辑结构，进而让人们看到了一种希望的曙光：这样写，我也会！我也能拿6分！于是在XDF某些知名教授的推崇下，让步论证似乎变成了一种万能的钥匙，能够打开一切无法解决的问题。 某些名师干脆就大声疾呼：你就不停的让步就行了，让步是最有效，最快捷，最方便，最可以量产的逻辑，有人能够通过让步拿6，你也可以！而且，出于它的其他一些好处：几乎前半句就是原封不动的重复上面提到过的话，方便了很多以“字数至上”的考生在短时间内显著的凑出可观的字数，让步如今泛滥成灾也就不足为奇了。 但是，童鞋们啊，当被漫天的速成，捷径误导的同时，你们真的就静下心来，想过让步到底是个什么东西了么？我曾经问过某个同学：“什么是让步？”他的答案让我好笑：“就是even though之类的从句就行了”我想，很多考生的想法也就是如此。 功利！ Even though可以表现出让步，所以让步就是even though了么？ 我是人，人就是我么？ 根本就不知道让步的内涵，能够去合理的用它么？当ETS普遍打出3分，3.5分的成绩的时候，中国人的通病就是不但不从自己找原因，反而开始漫骂ETS，甚至有这种话语在其中：“我I写了700字，A写了550+，凭什么我只能拿3.5？”感情这个考试不是考逻辑，不是考思维，而是考抄录速度了？ 什么是让步？按照我浅薄的个人理解，让步应该是一种：以对方的观点为基础，推导出深层的逻辑谬误，或者直接归谬否定原命题的辩证的论证方式。所以我们必须明确的两点就是： 1让步必须建立在你要批驳者的观点上，对于argument来说，就是作者的观点上。我见过有的文章，上来就让步接让步，当时我就很怀疑：作者真的有那么多话可以来给你让步么？结果果不其然，让步两次以后他就开始 even though + 自己以前的推论, 然后推到离题十万八千里的地方去了，偏偏本人还感觉良好，认为是神来之作。从这里我们可以看出：二次让步一般来说是不合逻辑的，因为第二次让步的东西，实际上是你第一次让步后得出的结论，而不是作者本来的意思。 2让步的作用是为了找出更加隐晦，更加深层的逻辑谬误，或者直接归谬否定。对于argument来说，就是从外表错误推断到本质错误的一个过程。有的童鞋不管三七二十一，不管这个逻辑到底有没有深层谬误（实际上，大部分的推论，是没有深层逻辑谬误的），先让步了再说。结果呢？自然是ETS杀你没商量。 可能光是理论上的东西感觉很深奥，那么我通过例子来说明：（随机选取，感谢janettaowei童鞋。） 61 The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria. "Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years." Janettaowei童鞋的中间三段论证过程是这样的（ts已经取出）: First, since the ratio of computers to students is 1:7 in Eyleria, which is lower than the national average level, it is possible that the computers there may be insufficient.（这段对我做例子没啥用，可以不用看这句ts） Second, even if the number of computers is enough at present time, there is no guarantee it would be sufficient when they graduate from high school. Last but not least, even Eyleria does not need to buy any computers, there still a lot of money need to be spent on computer. 好了，我们可以很清楚的看出他/她是用了两个让步来组织段落的内部结构的，接下来按照我一般的逻辑思维方式，我们把这个argument的逻辑联系理顺一下，恩，这是一篇相对比较难的逻辑连接了： National average ratio(已给) à 所有学生日常都能够用电脑（推论1） 某个地区的 average ratio 1：7à number is sufficient(推论2，注意这个推论是三无：无调查，无证据，无理由) à 学生fully proficient in the use of computer(推论3) 推论3 à 1:7就足够（推论4，注意这里的循环论证，实际上，是1：7的ratio推出的推论3，然而作者继续把这个推论3作为推出1:7这个ratio的理由）+ 推论1（1：5也足够）à 1：7这个ratio是合理的（推论5） 最后由推论5 à 结论 从我给的这个逻辑图中可以明显的看出， jane童鞋的论证偏题了，原因是什么？我想，让步的滥用绝对是罪魁祸首之一，我们来看他的第二论证段的TS：Second, even if the number of computers is enough at present time, there is no guarantee it would be sufficient when they graduate from high school. 按照我所述的让步的两大最基本原则，分析一下这个让步为什么会导致偏题： 1 让步必须建立在你要批驳者的观点上。 在这篇argument里面，作者在什么地方提到过：the number of computers is enough at present time? 这个仅仅是第一个论证段，jane童鞋自己的推理而已，这个让步的错误性直接指向了一种后果：否定掉你自己前面写的东西，搬起石头砸了自己的脚，而不是作者的脚。 2 让步必须揭示更深层次的逻辑谬误。 蓝色字体的句子，是主句，也是由让步而衍生出来的逻辑问题，然而句话揭示的东西，不仅仅是一个虚幻的推论，更重要的是，它跟让步的从句的关系是并列关系，而不是递进关系！这才是当我们读到：“第二，即使电脑数量目前足够，也没有证据表明它们以后会足够。”感觉荒谬的真正原因所在！换言之，如果没有递进的逻辑深度关系，用让步就是一种可笑的举动。 至于jane童鞋的第三个让步，那就更不用说，一步步让下来，直接已经不知道离题多少万里去了，有兴趣的童鞋们可以自己用两大基本原则来分析一下这句话，我在这里托个大，当成课后作业了。 现在，让我们回过头来看看那篇被誉为经典让步的6分范文： TEST 1: ARGUMENT TOPIC The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. 它的让步过程： Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage, this does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations. Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in Illium. 从我标注的颜色上，童鞋们，你们看到了么，什么是真正的满足第一条让步原则？经典让步的所有的让步条件，都是从原文里面抓出来的，目的是为了深刻的批驳原文的其他错误。现在，大家回过头去想一想，你们的让步论证，到底是一个什么过程？有没有注意到这个原则，还是随便发挥自由发扬最后离题万里自尤不知？如果是，那就要赶紧改过来了！ 然后我们retrospect第二个经典让步原则：但是在此之前，我希望能够把段落的逻辑理一下，这个逻辑链很简单，典型的地区性对比： Myria 的 Charge fees这条措施（已给）à 钱都用在环境上了（推论1） à little environmental damage(推论2) à 这种方法对任何环境下都有效（推论3）+Illium也面临相似的问题（已给）à Illium也应该采纳这种方法(结论) 接下来让我们回到第二条原则：递进式逻辑，或者直接归谬否定。 这篇范文的作者在某种层次上将这条原则运用的炉火纯青，很明显的，他的第一个让步是为了深入的驳斥上面的逻辑链的第二个箭头：这种方法有效。 而第二个让步则是为了直接把结论归谬，从而否定作者的推理，这里我不说太多，因为很多东西都已经在前面说的很清楚了，我希望童鞋们自己能够在这个地方去想一想，毕竟只有自己想明白的东西，才是自己的东西。 另外我还要从自己专业的角度来说一下这个让步的东西，实际上我一直认为，逻辑是相通的，不论你做什么工作。因此我认为，这种让步的论证方式，其实是很类似于算法当中的“回溯逻辑”。在计算机算法里面，回溯是一个很容易简化程序设计过程的一种方法，再长的东西，都能够简单成一个步奏以内的长度，因为不停的改变参数，重复调用它就行了。然而它的用途，非常非常的窄，除开纯理论以外，根本就没有地方用得到回溯这种东西。为什么？因为它的使用条件限制了一切：首先必须是链式逻辑，其次在链式逻辑当中，绝对不能够有其他的因素掺杂在里面。所以说当遇到我们生活当中常见的“剪枝，分叉，加权”等等逻辑的时候，它就是一个彻底的废物，如果强行的使用它，会出现很多的错误。 我想，让步作为一个类似的回溯机制，实际上也有着它自身能够使用的逻辑环境，绝不是像新东方类型的教导：什么万能的公式大家套就是了，如果这句话是真的，那么为什么没有见到杂志报刊论文辩论上张口就是“即使…”? 事实上，范文为什么能够用让步？因为它的逻辑，就是一个最典型的链式逻辑，每一步的推论，都是递进式的，这个时候，让步才有效的发挥了它的作用。但是如果不恰当的运用在其他的逻辑环境里，就会和计算机的计算结果一样，荒谬可笑！ 退一步海阔天空，这句话，不仅仅能够真实的反映出让步的作用，借这个题目，我也希望能够提醒各位：当逻辑链无法使用让步的时候，往上面焦头烂额的硬套不是一个明智的决定，退一步，你会发现：海阔天空。 ---------------------------------- 小结;让步并非万能钥匙，物尽其用，也要用得合适。具体问题具体分析。